SHOCKER! MTV’s 16 and Pregnant May Not Help Reduce Teen Pregnancy

This show has always seemed to be one of the more horrifying offerings in the scripted reality genre, especially to this father of a teenage daughter. MTV has always rationalized the show by saying that publicizing the negative consequences will impact young girls and keep them from getting pregnant. Apparently, no one at MTV has ever met a teenager and seen the effects television can have on them.

The idea behind “16 and Pregnant” is that viewers will see the negative consequences that come from having a baby as a teenager. A content analysis of the show conducted by one of Aubrey’s graduate student collaborators at the University of Missouri does show more negative than positive consequences of pregnancy.

Aubrey claims, however, that the show is filled with mixed messages about pregnancy.

“There’s this semi-scripted moment in every show where the girls say things like, ‘If I had the opportunity, I would do things differently.’ But, then there’s also this adorable newborn, and the teen moms are getting all this attention from the people in their lives.”

Aubrey says that one of the “myths of teen pregnancy” that is measured in the study is that most teenage fathers stay involved with the young woman they have made pregnant. In reality, most teenage fathers do not stay involved, Aubrey said, citing National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy data. In the show, however, the teenage fathers typically do stay, she said.

“Romantic relationships are really important to many teenage girls,” said Aubrey. “And when you just look at those romantic relationships in the show, there are more positive consequences that the teen pregnancy brings than negative consequences.”

The researchers also note that the money and celebrity that the teenage moms receive may also be appealing to teenage girls.

The last part is one I have often discussed with people who like watching the show. The teenage mind isn’t known for its ability to weigh consequences or delay gratification. All the kids know when watching this is, “Hey-she got pregnant and got on TV!” Like it or not, they’re making it appealing to the adolescent mind.

If we could just get this show and 60 Minutes off the air, America would be a far better place.

Stephen Kruiser is a professional comedian and writer who has also been a conservative political activist for over two decades. A co-founder of the first Los Angeles Tea Party, Kruiser often speaks to grassroots groups around America and has had the great honor of traveling around the world entertaining U.S. troops.

This is now the dumbest statement I've ever read on PJ Media by a commentator.

Do you understand that the 1st amendment only applies to the government? Do you have any concept of the free market, and that consumers can choose what they want to consume and not consume? The choice of consumers to avoid a certain product will often lead to that product's demise.

Nowhere in Bryan Preston's article does he advocate for the government forcing 16 and Moronic off the air. You are a fool of the 1st order and you should apologize or risk destroying your credibility here forever.

So saying you wish a TV show was off the air is some sort of assault on the First Amendment? Get off your high horse. No where in his post did SK advocate government intervention in ridding the TV of those shows. Oh, I highly doubt you're a conservative or anything close to it, especially with your nose in the air phony outrage last paragraph. Just smacks of some troll/shill.

Gentlemen, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony; I barley know where to begin. You don't ban ideas, you engage them with substantives in a free society. There are lots of shows and books and ideas I don't like for substantive reasons but I don't fear them, advocate banning them.

Quit right it is to point out that government action isn't directly called for in the article but the Bill of Rights only has the strength that the people give it by strong support. Not too long ago there were people on PJ advocating signing a petition to have Pers Morgan silenced, so much for First rights if you don't like what's said, right? Duck Dynasty bring anything to mind? You don't "ban" ideas in a free society. People shouldn't loose their jobs because they think differently. At long last are you not fed up with the "gotcha" groups?

The book "Lady Chatterley's Lover" by Lawrence was banned in this country in the not too distant past. How could the government ban a book? How? People didn't care, some bureaucrat decided it, case closed. How long do you suppose the "idea" of any rights provided by the Second Amendment would last without the body guard of a free people? Further, the "idea" of the Fourth Amendment is under heavy attack, and without the Fourth, the First doesn't mean a thing.

But gentlemen what I really long to find out is what is your definition of a conservative? I'm not, you say, then you must know what is, please, in detail, tell us that we may all go forward with a better idea. I promise not to advocate banning what you say. LOL

I'm not sure what you mean by "banning ideas"? I've said things along those lines before; "Man I wish such and such wasn't on.." but in no way shape or form does that mean I A) fear them or B) want by governmental force that tv show/book/idea banned. It's all about fighting in the realm of ideas which I'm fine with, doesn't mean I can't have those thoughts and still be consistent with the Bill of Rights.

As far as the Piers Morgan thing goes - I generally don't go for trying to get someone fired, hell Piers did a better job than any of could have tried to do! Again, nobody is advocating banning ideas in a free society still not sure where you're getting this.

Well you seem to think SK was a reactionary with this article, so I'm more interested in what you think is a conservative to be honest. Plus, I think most people on this site can get on board with your wanting to not have your basic liberties screwed with, it just came off really really poor considering the context of this specific article. It's not like SK said "BAN ALL THE TV SHOWS! BURN ALL THE BOOKS! ALL HAIL THE KRUISER!"

Have you even 'heard' of the First Amendment, but after a couple of hundred years it's still too radical a document for you right? You'd be right it is the most radically revolutionary document ever written; it, hold your breath, believes that people can be trusted with personal sovereignty; that the free market place of ideas is self regulating.

But I'd like to know who else gets to put TV programs on "the list"? Just you or just other conservatives? I consider myself a conservative but based on the tenor of your post I see you as a reactionary. Will liberals get to add to "the list"; what do you suppose their "list" would look like? And oh, my God, what about books... now where did I put that kindling?

Finally, I'm fed up with people wanting to restrict my basic basic liberties, my personal sovereignty, as a human, as an American citizen, so as to create an environment that is fail-safe for the most demented teen imagination can conger.

I think he's pointing out the absurdity of someone blaming the show itself. It's like blaming violent video games or movies for what may be undesirable behavior in kids. Who's the gatekeeper to all the content? I doubt 16 year olds are paying the cable and internet bill. It's not the content itself that's to blame, the focus should be the parents (the gatekeepers) who allow access to mature content. Otherwise you're playing into the premise that the first amendment is to blame. Imo Stephen Kruiser, in this article, sounds like he has more in common with people who blame a video for the Banghazi attack.

This is now the dumbest statement I've ever read on PJ Media by a commentator.

Do you understand that the 1st amendment only applies to the government? Do you have any concept of the free market, and that consumers can choose what they want to consume and not consume? The choice of consumers to avoid a certain product will often lead to that product's demise.

Nowhere in Bryan Preston's article does he advocate for the government forcing 16 and Moronic off the air. You are a fool of the 1st order and you should apologize or risk destroying your credibility here forever.

So saying you wish a TV show was off the air is some sort of assault on the First Amendment? Get off your high horse. No where in his post did SK advocate government intervention in ridding the TV of those shows. Oh, I highly doubt you're a conservative or anything close to it, especially with your nose in the air phony outrage last paragraph. Just smacks of some troll/shill.